From Acts 22:1 through the remainder of the book, Luke records five different occasions in which Paul, the missionary to the Gentiles, gives a defence of this ministry. As we have seen, the human necessity for this apology was that the Jews saw Paul as a traitor to the nation, for a couple of reasons.
First, Paul was claiming that Gentiles should be seen as having equal standing with the Jews before the Lord. By the way, this was true whether they were believers or unbelievers (see Romans 2—3).
Second, Paul was proclaiming as Lord Jesus the one whom the Jews of Jerusalem had condemned to death some twenty-plus years earlier. This, no doubt, was perceived by these Jews as looking foolish at best and evil in the end.
And so it was because of this that some Jews (perhaps from Asia who had followed Paul to Jerusalem) trumped up the malevolent lie that Paul had broken the law by bringing a Gentile into the area of the temple reserved for the Jews. Such a violation brought the death penalty, which even the Romans recognised and supported.
And so, with this background, we can better appreciate Paul in these five episodes as being an apologetic missionary.
As we give our attention to 22:21—23:22 we will do so by noting a particular theme: namely, a marginalised missionary on a marginalised mission. What I means is that Paul was largely marginalised by his own people precisely because he was a missionary to the marginalised (the Gentiles). Further, it seems that he was even marginalised by the Jerusalem church, for none of the Jerusalem church members was here to support Paul in this most trying time.
It should also be noted that he was even marginalised by the marginalised! That is, even the Romans largely ignored him. And yet, as we well know, Paul was doing the most important thing that anyone could do: preaching the good news of Jesus Christ, the glorious gospel of God.
We will study this passage under six main headings and, as we do so, will seek to make relevant application to missions and missionaries today. My goal is to help us to understand and to appreciate the challenges faced by our missionaries and to equip us to pray and to practically support them in this most important of works. They may be marginalised as they minister to the marginalised, but their work is magnificent!
Paul’s commission, received from the Lord, was quite simple: “Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles” (v. 21).
We saw previously that Paul’s first defence, recorded here, consisted of the story of his pre-conversion life and continued with the account of his conversion. But Paul’s conversion most naturally led to his commissioning. The Lord saved him in order that he might serve Him. The gist of this commissioning is found here in v. 21, “Then He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.’” As we will see in a moment, this claim ignited passions once again. It should, in one sense, ignite ours as well—positively.
Paul’s claim was that Jesus is Lord and that He had sent Paul to preach the grace of God to Gentiles. This was abhorrent to most Jews of the day. In fact, the average Jew of that day viewed the world in terms of “us” and “the rest.” This helps us to understand some of what is happening in these defences of Paul for his ministry.
Paul was proclaiming God’s love for the nations beyond Israel. But he was also doing something else. He was proclaiming that God loves the marginalised and that the Messiah, whom the Jews had rejected, had commissioned him. In other words, there is a not-so-subtle hint here that if they rejected Paul they were actually rejecting God. After all, God had sent Paul. The logic is irrefutable.
A word about the commission to the marginalised is in order here.
As we use the word, we refer to those who are considered “disadvantaged” or “disenfranchised.” The same could be said of the Gentiles in Paul’s day. Less than thirty years earlier, Jesus had commanded His disciples to preach the gospel of the kingdom to only “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6). So, in a sense, the nations had been marginalised from the Great Commission—but no longer. Now, they were the focus; and it was precisely this focus which so provoked the anger of the Jews in this scene.
Missions today is still to be focused on the nations, but in a particular way on the marginalised ethnos of the unengaged and of the unreached. There are thousands of people groups—pockets of nations—that have yet to be exposed to a full presentation of the gospel. Thousands of these nations do not have a viable local church and hence a viable local witness to the person and work of Christ. Though doubtless other missions outreaches are important and valid, we must focus on the more marginalised. And, as Paul experienced, not everyone who is religious will appreciate this. So be it.
As we see time and again in Acts, Paul’s faithfulness to his commission was not without conflict. His opponents frequently rejected the Lord and thus His messenger. We see this again in our present text:
And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!” Then, as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air.
These narrative accounts of the apostle Paul’s five defences before various groups give us much insight both to the mission of Paul and to his life as a missionary. In fact, it is fair to say that these accounts, on a purely human level at least, do not serve as propaganda to promote enlistment of missionaries! Paul faced many difficulties, and here we see his life once again under threat.
Acts is replete with references to Paul’s life under threat. His life was threatened at Damascus (9:22-25), by the Hellenistic Jews (9:29), in Pisidian Antioch (13:50-51), at Iconium (14:5) and Lystra (14:19-20), in Corinth (18:12-17), at Ephesus (20:19) and even at sea (20:3). This pattern did not end with Paul, but Christians everywhere were under threat (see 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).
Paul’s description of his commission was infuriating to this Jewish audience. Verse 23 says that “they listened to him until this word.” Robertson notes, “They kept on listening, at least with respectful attention. . . . But ‘this word’ was like a spark in a powder magazine or a torch to an oil tank. The explosion of pent-up indignation broke out instantly worse than at first.”1
The reason for this emotional explosion was because “for Paul to go to the Gentiles was unpardonable; that he should go to them and tell them that the One they had crucified, was the Messiah and the Saviour of the world, the Lord from heaven, was to them the crime of crimes. Paul was a traitor.”2
We need to remember the prejudice that the Jews of that day had towards non-Jews. For Paul to claim that their God had sent him to the Gentiles was “tantamount to placing the Jews and Gentiles on an equal footing before God, and for Judaism this was the height of apostasy indeed!”3
Their response was typical of the ancient Eastern peoples. With great demonstration, they showed their hostility towards Paul. In fact the phrase “he is not fit to live” implies that they thought he should have been put to death long ago.
We should not be under delusion concerning the conflict faced by missionaries of our own day. In fact, the very thought that we believe that others are in need of conversion is deeply offensive to many. Sadly, the concept of missions and missionaries in some circles of Christendom is also offensive. The us-four-and-no-more mentality is alive and, sadly, all too well.
The tumult was increasing, and the Roman soldiers felt that they needed to do something about it, but they soon encountered an incredible result of providence in the life of Paul:
And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.” Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” He said, “Yes.” The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.” And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.” Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.
The resurgence of the tumult brought further consternation to the commander. Having sought clarity from the mob concerning Paul’s alleged guilt, and having now listened to Paul’s defence, he was still in the dark as to the nature of the accusation. But a Roman commander was not about to allow a riot to break the Pax Romana in Jerusalem. He determined, therefore, to learn the truth by torture, and so he commanded Paul to be “scourged.”
Paul was no stranger to physical beatings. In fact, on at least five occasions he received beatings of 39 lashes (2 Corinthians 11:24). But scourging was the most brutal form of physical punishment. A scourge consisted of a short handle with leather strips and sharp bone or metal at the end of the straps. A scourged would usually tear pieces of flesh from the victim. It was used, you will remember, on Jesus.
If one survived—and it was not uncommon for the victim to die—he would usually be crippled for life. Such punishment was not legally permitted on Roman citizens. This was therefore a good time for Paul to show his passport! Barclay notes, “He knew he must not needlessly court martyrdom nor recklessly throw his life away. Gladly he would one day die for Christ but he was too wise a man to throw his life away.”4
As Paul was being bound in preparation for the beating he asked the appointed centurion if it was still illegal to scourge a Roman citizen—particularly one who was untried and unconvicted under law. Longnecker confirms this when he writes, “In trials of Roman citizens there must first be a formulation of charges and penalties, then a formal accusation laid, and then a hearing before a Roman magistrate and his advisory cabinet.”5 You can almost see the soldier turn pale with the shock!
The centurion immediately stopped what he was doing and informed the commander of Paul’s claim, who now hurried to examine Paul’s claim. The commander boasted that he had purchased his freedom. What he meant, in fact, is that he had purchased it under the table. There was no legal way to purchase Roman citizenship. The only means of “purchase” was bribery. It is interesting that Luke names this centurion as Claudius Lysias (23:26). Claudius and his wife were infamous for granting citizenship through bribery, and perhaps his birth name was Lysias and Claudius was added to this after he “purchased” his citizenship. Regardless, this man was rightfully concerned about Paul’s claim. We don’t know how Paul proved his citizenship, but perhaps he carried some form of identification that proved that he was a Roman citizen. If this was a contest, Paul won hands down!
The commander immediately called a halt to the scourging. He would have to find the truth of the accusations some other way.
I want to pause here for a moment and make the observation that God is sovereign over all—including the family into which we are born, and therefore our nationality and citizenship (see 17:24-26). When He commissions a missionary, He has prepared the way (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Paul’s citizenship came in handy on more than one occasion in Acts.
In fact, earlier in this chapter (vv. 1-3) we have other evidence of this. God had so ordered Paul’s birth and upbringing that he knew various languages and was prepared academically for the ministry to which the Lord had called him. In commenting on that passage John Phillips insightfully notes, “This seemingly insignificant incident, due to Paul’s good education and cultured manner, is one of the turning points of history. . . . Thus God uses the everyday things of life to carry on His purposes in the world.”6
We can learn from this that the Lord prepares His missionaries in various ways, many of which are outside of our control. We should not spend our lives regretting (or boasting about) things over which we had no control! The Lord puts together His missionaries in such a way that they will be most effective where He sends them.
Further, we should use the political means that the Lord gives to us for the furtherance of the gospel. There are countries in this world into which a carrier of an American passport cannot enter, but which a South African citizen can. Surely we should make use of those opportunities. We should look for opportunities to use the law of the land as an aid to spread the gospel. God providentially prepares all sorts of means for us to further His gospel, and we should note these opportunities and make use of them.
Ultimately, of course, Paul’s citizenship was in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and this is ultimately what gives us security in difficult times. We will see this soon.
Next, we learn something about Paul’s conscience and his relationship with the Lord.
The next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them.
Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
The commander, thwarted from securing the facts through scourging, tried again. He called together the Jewish Council (the Sanhedrin) in order to determine the cause of the commotion. Of course, he had no voice in the Sanhedrin, but he had the authority to demand that they meet to discuss the matter.
A word must be said about the scenario that unfolds here. It really is a very sad and pathetic scene. The Jewish people had been given the Great Commission under the old covenant. They were to be such stewards of the oracles of God that the nations would be blessed. But due to their apostasy they were now persecuting those who were faithful with this gospel (the church). How sad that this Roman commander and his soldiers must witness what in one sense was an intramural fight.
I recall reading of a particular church in the city of Boston in which a fistfight broke out between the pastor and some of the church members at the annual general meeting. It careened sufficiently out of control that the police were called in to settle the matter. As the guilty parties later stood before a judge to answer for their misbehaviour, the Jewish judge said, “I don’t know much about the God you claim to serve. He may allow such disorder, but the State of Massachusetts will not allow it.” Much the same was unfolding before the eyes of the Roman soldiers in the scene before us.
The Sanhedrin was hastily called together and Paul was given opportunity to address them. Verse 1 emphasises that Paul was “looking earnestly” at them. There are various ideas as to why he needed to gaze so intently at them. Some have suggested that Paul had poor eyesight. It is possible that, in all the commotion, he was trying to familiarise himself with who was there, being in many ways now a stranger in Jerusalem. Perhaps also this gives us insight into Paul’s unflinching courage and determination. He was going to make the most of his opportunity.
He begins by addressing them as “brethren.” In so doing, he was identifying himself as one of them. He claimed that he had “lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” The word “lived” literally means “to live as a citizen.” Paul was further identifying with them. As Rackham points out, “He had lived as God’s citizen, as a member of God’s commonwealth.”7
Paul spoke often of his conscience. He alludes to this twice in Acts (here and 24:16) as well as some 21 times in his writings. The conscience is “the inner ‘judge’ or ‘witness’ that approves when we do right and disapproves when we do wrong (Rom. 2:15).”8
The conscience does not set the standard, but it applies the standard. Paul was not saying that he was sinless (after all, he had persecuted Christians) but rather that, when it came to his Jewishness, he had sought to be faithful. This claim resulted in the high priest rebuking him. He ordered Paul to be slapped in the face. Why? Stott says it well: “Ananias understood Paul’s words as a claim that, though now a Christian, he was still a good Jew, having served God with a good conscience all his life, even ‘to this day.’”9 This was too much for corrupt Ananias to bear.
Paul’s response was one of indignation. He responded with what appears to be an insult: “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall.” In essence, Paul was calling this man a hypocrite (cf. Matthew 23:27). The bystanders immediately rebuked him—“Do you revile God’s high priest?”—and he seemingly retracts his comment: “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” How do we explain this scene?
Some have argued that Paul was quite right to speak in this way to the hypocritical high priest, and that his seeming retraction was pure sarcasm. Fortner takes this view: “Paul’s words in verse 5 have a tone of sarcasm in them. It is as though he were saying, ‘Him—a high priest! If that man was God’s high priest, I would not speak evil of him.’”10 If this is the case, there is still need to discuss whether or not Paul was justified in his use of sarcasm.
I personally take a different approach. I believe that Paul was wrong in the way he responded. He was angry and “momentarily lost his composure—as evidently Ananias hoped he would—and put himself at a disadvantage before the council.”11 It seems to me that he was quite genuine in admitting that he didn’t realise that Ananias was the high priest. Let us remember that it had been a long time since he had been in Jerusalem, and he quite possibly would not know Ananias by sight. Further, the Council had been so hurriedly gathered that it is likely they were not wearing their official priestly garments. As noted earlier, it is quite possible that Paul had poor eyesight.
However you explain his failure to recognise the high priest, it seems that he immediately recognised that he had done wrong and asked forgiveness. As Longnecker notes, “We cannot excuse this sudden burst of anger, though we must not view it self-righteously. We are made of the same stuff as Paul, and his provocation was greater than most of us will ever face. Yet his quickness in acknowledging his wrong (v. 5) was more than many of us are willing to do.”12
I suppose we cannot say for certain, but it does seem that, when he was rebuked, he humbly acquiesced by acknowledging the law (Exodus 22:18). He understood that we must respect the position of those in authority while we may not be able to respect the person in that position. Phillips rightfully observes, “The man was despicable, but the office was venerable. Paul, showing his own instinctive knowledge of the law and his willing submission to the law, paid his respects to the position if not to the person.”13 His quotation of this law points to this understanding. As Harrison notes, “Since Israel no longer had a king in Paul’s day, the high priest was the ruler of the people.”14
Ironically, this response was further corroboration of his claim in v. 1 and of his fidelity as a Jew to God’s Word. In other words, the new covenant did not make him a traitor to the old covenant!
I would simply want for us to observe that being a missionary does not make you perfect, but missionaries should be especially careful to submit to God’s Word—all of it. Also, pressures can mount for a missionary, and so they need to guard their hearts as well as their mouths (Proverbs 13:3-4).
One more historical observation here: Whether or not Paul was right in his disposition, his words nevertheless proved to be prophetic. Several years later, during the Jewish War, Ananias was hunted down like a dog and killed when he was found hiding in an aqueduct in Jerusalem. God does vindicate His people. Most importantly, He vindicates His Son.
What drove Paul’s fidelity to his commission was his conviction that Jesus Christ really was alive. The resurrection of the Lord was his spur.
But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both. Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks.
Once he recovered his composure, Paul identified himself as a Pharisee and said that, in keeping with being a (second generation) Pharisee, he believed “in the hope and resurrection of the dead.” In fact, he was being judged and assaulted simply because he was a faithful Pharisee! Why or how could he make such a claim?
He could do so because he indeed was a Pharisee. Remember, not all Pharisees were hypocrites. Many were noble—like Nicodemus. The Pharisees believed the Word of God and therefore believed in the supernatural and in the resurrection. He was clearly and merely claiming that his belief in Christ is perfectly consistent with being a Pharisee. “Paul was saying that the real issue in his case was not an alleged infringement of the sanctity of the temple but rather the theological issue of the nature of the hope of his people.”15
Some have accused Paul of playing politics, but that is wrongheaded and unjustified. The fact is, Paul was absolutely correct. It was precisely because he believed in the risen Lord that he was standing before them. The risen Lord had saved him and had sent him to the Gentiles.
The resurrection is a major theme in Acts for it is, of course, an integral part of the gospel message (see 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 24:21; 26:6-8; 28:20). Without belabouring this important point, the missionary must maintain his conviction of the resurrection of Jesus, otherwise he has no message and no ministry.
For Paul, things once again went south. There was a huge outcry in the assembly, but this time not only was Paul in danger, but fists were probably landing on various noses of Sadducees and Pharisees. The commander once again stepped in to rescue Paul from the mob and brought him to the barracks.
If Paul felt uncomfortable at any point in this entire scene—and who wouldn’t be?—God’s revelation proved to be his source of comfort:
But the following night the Lord stood by him and said, “Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.” And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. Now there were more than forty who had formed this conspiracy. They came to the chief priests and elders, and said, “We have bound ourselves under a great oath that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul. Now you, therefore, together with the council, suggest to the commander that he be brought down to you tomorrow, as though you were going to make further inquiries concerning him; but we are ready to kill him before he comes near.” So when Paul’s sister’s son heard of their ambush, he went and entered the barracks and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions to him and said, “Take this young man to the commander, for he has something to tell him.” So he took him and brought him to the commander and said, “Paul the prisoner called me to him and asked me to bring this young man to you. He has something to say to you.” Then the commander took him by the hand, went aside, and asked privately, “What is it that you have to tell me?” And he said, “The Jews have agreed to ask that you bring Paul down to the council tomorrow, as though they were going to inquire more fully about him. “But do not yield to them, for more than forty of them lie in wait for him, men who have bound themselves by an oath that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him; and now they are ready, waiting for the promise from you.” So the commander let the young man depart, and commanded him, “Tell no one that you have revealed these things to me.”
Paul was doubtless tempted to discouragement at this point. He could not escape it: conflict after conflict, threat after threat. When would it end? Furthermore, even though he had come to Jerusalem with a love gift for the Jewish Christians there, none of the members of that church had come to support him. He was perhaps lonely. But it was precisely at that point that the Lord appeared to him. The Lord is always on time with a word in season (18:9-10; see 2 Timothy 4:17)!
We see in this passage the comfort of a missionary. There are two major comforts here: God’s promise and God’s providence.
In v. 11, we read of God’s promise. The Lord appeared to Paul as he was imprisoned and encouraged him with the promise that he would not only survive this present ordeal, but would in fact bear witness of the Lord in Rome. Just think about how this promise would have strengthened him for the present trial as well as for the trials that lay ahead. One thinks of the words of missionary Henry Martyn who said that you are immortal until God is through with you.
This vision is a corroboration of the promise of Matthew 28:20: “Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the age.” What a glorious promise for the missionary to claim!
When you feel fruitless, when you are lonely, when you miss your family, when you are uncertain of the future, when you are financially challenged, when you are opposed and rejected, and when your life is threatened, the Lord is with you!
In what follows, this promise will be put to the test.
Verses 12-22 again highlight God’s providence. The Jews, fuelled no doubt by the latest angst in the Sanhedrin, were determined to carry out their sentence that “this man is not fit to live.” They conspired to kill him. “What is here emphasized is not only the villainy of the assassins, but the utter degradation of the national council and thus the hopeless apostasy of the Jewish nation.”16
Their plan was to ask the commander for another meeting. When Paul was brought to the assembly, they planned to assassinate him. But God had a purpose. God had a plan. God had given His promise. And so, in His providence, God ensured that someone friendly to Paul overheard this scheme. God had placed Paul’s nephew in such a position that he heard the plan and relayed it to the commander, who subsequently protected Paul with safe passage out of Jerusalem to Caesarea. God, in His providence, fulfilled His promise.
Note how Paul is described in v. 18: “Paul the prisoner.” This would become a favourite self-descriptive word for the apostle (see Ephesians 3:1; 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1, 9). As Wiersbe remarks, “Paul would rather be a prisoner than give up his burden for lost souls and for missions! We could use more Christians like that today.”17 Indeed.
Obviously, though he overheard the plot, this youngster still needed to gain access to an important Roman commander. How did this come about? Because, as Paul’s nephew, he had Roman citizenship! Amazing! God began to protect Paul when Paul’s parents became Roman citizens! When we consider such providence, we can appreciate the comforting words of Augustine who said, “Trust the past to the mercy of God, the present to His love and the future to His providence.”18
We also see here “what great lengths the Jews would go to be rid of Paul, this present passage shows the lengths to which the Romans would go to protect a citizen of the Empire, even if he was a Jew.”19 Again, we see God’s providential hand.
As we bring this to a close let us learn that to be a missionary, by the nature of the task, means that you will be marginalised by many. Most will not see what you are doing as significant. Many, in fact, will conclude (as did these Jews) that you are not fit to live. Further, as you seek to reach the marginalised (and once they are converted, they will now be seen as the marginalised!) you may be further marginalised. But do not worry, for God sees this work as magnificent. After all, the work of missions is His.
- A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1930), 3:393. ↩
- John Phillips, Exploring Acts, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 2:210. ↩
- Richard N. Longnecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1981), 9:526. ↩
- William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles: The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), 179. ↩
- Longnecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:528. ↩
- Phillips, Exploring Acts, 2:203. ↩
- Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 3:397. ↩
- Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 6 vols. (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications, 2001), 5:494. ↩
- John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), 351. ↩
- Donald S. Fortner, Life After Pentecost: A Guide to the Acts of the Apostles (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1995), 269. ↩
- Longnecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:530-31. ↩
- Longnecker, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:531. ↩
- Phillips, Exploring Acts, 214. ↩
- Everett F. Harrison, Interpreting Acts: The Expanding Church (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1986), 367. ↩
- Harrison, Interpreting Acts, 368. ↩
- Erdman, The Acts, 171. ↩
- Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 5:492. ↩
- Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 5:496. ↩
- Harrison, Interpreting Acts, 373. ↩